If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

^ The City can and has partaken in accounting studies that measure the cost of delivering services by neighbourhood. Those studies should be annual, and should inform the property tax rate in each area.

I've been to Ambleside. I have family right across the Henday from there. It is an improvement (you even have a couple faux fused-grid park connections in there!), but nowhere near even the new global standard of sustainable suburban design. I'm not going to say it is bad, but there definitely isn't anything to write home about.

Get rid of the radburn-style curvilinear streets with incomprehensible designs and switch to a proper street hierarchy, build walking infrastructure that is designed to lead somewhere rather than just back and forth, and incorporate mixed uses and varying residential types in a more seamless manner, then we can talk.

Edit: I should say I have to be careful with that area, because I automatically associate it with the Windermere power centre. That place is an unmitigated disaster. Huge lost potential.

Those walking paths connect directly to the windermere center, which still doesn't have most of the innards even built yet. I wouldn't call it an unmitigated disaster, it still has huge potential, and no where close to its final built form. It's certainly far better that south Edmonton common has even come close to.

There is a difference between paths that can lead somewhere, and an intentional design for walking transportation leading places. Again, it is better than most Edmonton suburbs, but paths are still an afterthought. You're right that it is better though - it is a wide improvement over the districts north of the henday from you (even Terwillegar town, because half-assed new urbanism is worse than no new urbanism).

On Windermere being a disaster: we were sold a mixed-use town centre style development. We got a big box power centre. I understand that it isn't fully built out, but I frankly can't see how it will become what they advertised to get the approval.

The Windermere shopping area should have been fundamentally integrated into the Ambleside area, with only the anchor big-box places on the outside across the street. Instead there is a neighbourhood that is halfway between sort-of being a hybrid grid and a classic curvilinear area with a couple high rises around the outside, divided from the commercial uses with a huge street that has exactly zero fronting businesses.

"Better than South Edmonton Common" is a pretty low bar. Like Hermes Conrad limbo low.

true, not much of a bar, but many bars above any other attempt at a shopping district in Edmonton that's not jasper ave or whyte ave. It achieves a decent balance of walk-ability (especially once everything is built (many of the central sidewalk/buildings are still yet to break ground) and still provides parking for those 100,000 people in its catchment area that are not in walking distance.

I'm not sure the its ever been sold as mixed used, as the zoning has never been mixed use, and never applied as mixed use.
Edmonton struggles with mixed use anywhere, not just here in the suburbs. Even downtown struggles with mixed use, and also has a lot inner ward facing developments. Just look at EPCOR tower for example. A brand new office tower, but no outward facing CRUs, especially along 101st?!?!

What attracts people to Edmonton? It's not a tourist mecca. It's not a cultural mecca. It's a great place to raise a family with lots of room to grow. Lots of green space, great employment opportunities, and fairly affordable compared to other similar markets w/ similar employment opportunities. People come to Edmonton for that, not because downtown is building a new arena, or RAM, or else-wise.

I dont think the paths are an afterthought, it's quicker for me to walk on these paths to get to the various retail and business that will be at all three ends of the path than it is to drive.

Take a look at the NSP ASP for Ambleside/Windermere.

It seems like we think about walkability and design in a different way. From my perspective, it feels like they plopped in walking paths wherever didn't detract from maximizing saleable land.

Regardless, if it works for you that is a good thing (you live there, not me, so if you're happy with it then they have met their market). Again, it is definitely better than the other side of the henday.

I still think Ambleside/Windermere is a huge lost chance at building a great suburb. The commercial area should have been fundamentally integrated into the residential. It should feel like one continuous neighbourhood with a commercial core.

neither of those refer to the shopping area know as current of windermere. You link only refers to the neighbourhood, not the area of Windermere (kinda confusing as theres a neighbourhood called windermere in the Windermere area...) here is the ASP: http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...solidation.pdf

Like I said, I've got very little practical knowledge of Windermere as conveniently there's nothing there I need that I can't get closer to home & none of my friends or family live out there. I figured the Currents of Windermere would be in the Windermere NSP, but thanks for pointing out it's not.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Manning crossing is the same. The big box part is just as badly designed as a 20 year old box centre, but I have to admit that the landscaping and even parking design in the corner with the cineplex and Boston pizza is much better. It's been mitigated somewhat by providing decent walkways in the parking lot, a decent number of trees, and a nice little plaza where you can sit and wait for you movie to start. If by the time it's all done the in-development walkways are well connected with paths in the larger neighbourhood then I'd call it a significant step up from Costco, home depot and superstore just down the way.

Give me a f'ing break. The exact same line is applicable to you, SDM, IanO & just about everyone with an pre-2008 start date. Including me. I think the only person who has maintained or improved his posting style is Bulliver who's honed his shots to a keen edge. The rest of us, not so much.

The sheer hubris & lack of empathy most of the posters have on this board truly embodies my current personal motto for Edmonton.

"F you, I got mine."

???

Lack of empathy?

Are you referring to my comments to stop ghettoising McCauley and Central McDougall?

Or to my open disdain for anti-Edmonton trolls?

Should I reiterate that I both live and work in the burbs? Does that help? Or that my focus on Downtown is to one have our City compete better against other cities?

Not really sure what you're getting at, but I wasn't referring to Meds' writing skills.

Give me a f'ing break. The exact same line is applicable to you, SDM, IanO & just about everyone with an pre-2008 start date. Including me. I think the only person who has maintained or improved his posting style is Bulliver who's honed his shots to a keen edge. The rest of us, not so much.

The sheer hubris & lack of empathy most of the posters have on this board truly embodies my current personal motto for Edmonton.

"F you, I got mine."

I think I'll never completely understand online behavior. Jaybee and Medwards have an ongoing thing going on which is apparently OK to both of them. it happens. (Not absolving it either it sets a tone of conflict when theres a lot of infighting going on in a board) What is not necessary is attacks like your post out of the blue and what I consider a driveby. Then complete with an incomprehensible attached blaming of "empathy" and everything that's wrong with people and Edmonton. The reader is left wondering where that came from. I know you acknowledged yourself as well in complaining about the posting here but how does that post help? it just furthers the cycle of discord here even if your attempt was to model it for demonstration.

Can I ask that people think twice about making such posts and maybe refrain a bit?

My take through years is this place has been a **** show at times and with an unending amount of agendas about other posters which once established keeps on going.

As another poster here that can either take stuff or leave it its still disconcerting the amount of verbal abuse that goes on on this board. Which I think prevents a lot of lurkers from wanting to take part. I think that's the much larger issue that constrains this online community then what the OP stated in isolation.

Sorry in advance to piggyback this message onto your post but it illustratess an example of how quickly things go sideways here.

Last edited by Replacement; 03-11-2015 at 07:06 AM.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

Can you elaborate on how/why Currents is 'an unmitigated disaster' please?

The fact that it is a 'success' as presented is the real failure/disaster.

But yes, all areas can improve... The difference being how much.

So your not going to elaborate your opinion on mistakes as requested by several and just do another drive by. Cute!

Most of downtown is a mistake. A supposed pedestrain mecca with mostly inward facing retail in many many major buildings, and most of the crus that face outwards to the street have a veey short shelf life

Clearly we need to do a better job at building our entire City, although we have made some good strides in many area, but we continue to make the same 'mistakes' in many areas.

what do you mean by "'mistakes'"? and by "many areas" for that matter? this is exactly the kind of innuendo we need less of, not a continuation of. unless maybe you're talking about downtown? we've made more mistakes there in the last half century than the rest of the city combined.

Ken, I hope I do not have to explain this to you of all people.

yes IanO, you do indeed need to explain what you mean and not rely on innuendo alone to "save" you from your own opinions.

Can you elaborate on how/why Currents is 'an unmitigated disaster' please?

The fact that it is a 'success' as presented is the real failure/disaster.

But yes, all areas can improve... The difference being how much.

not much of an elaboration IanO...

and as far as "all areas can improve... The difference being how much", downtown would still probably be at the top of that list (and even more so if you rightly include some of the immediately adjacent communities and not just the "official" downtown boundaries).

you would probably find more support for your opinions if you chose to express them from ground level and supported them with facts instead of dropping opinions with innuendo from a high horse.

^ The City can and has partaken in accounting studies that measure the cost of delivering services by neighbourhood. Those studies should be annual, and should inform the property tax rate in each area.

I've been to Ambleside. I have family right across the Henday from there. It is an improvement (you even have a couple faux fused-grid park connections in there!), but nowhere near even the new global standard of sustainable suburban design. I'm not going to say it is bad, but there definitely isn't anything to write home about.

Get rid of the radburn-style curvilinear streets with incomprehensible designs and switch to a proper street hierarchy, build walking infrastructure that is designed to lead somewhere rather than just back and forth, and incorporate mixed uses and varying residential types in a more seamless manner, then we can talk.

Edit: I should say I have to be careful with that area, because I automatically associate it with the Windermere power centre. That place is an unmitigated disaster. Huge lost potential.

^ First off, appropriation does not equal expansion. In fact, appropriation must often be done to prevent expansion. If the City does not control the land, they cannot pass plans restricting growth into it. I agree that the City does not appear to particularly care about following their own growth plans though, and I routinely criticize them for it.

Secondly, "monoculture" refers to the build pattern. When I say "monoculture suburb", it means a sea of single family detached homes. Monoculture suburbs are unequivocally bad for the environment, the economy, and the fiscal state of their government jurisdiction. This is something that is a hard fact. They cost us a lot, in many different ways.

Third, I completely recognize that suburbs serve a purpose. I just think that we should build more sustainable suburbs, and charge all people in all areas a property tax rate that is indexed to the cost of providing services to them.

I'm not suggesting that people who live in suburbs are bad, or that all suburbs are bad. I think it is bad that we create a perverse incentive for bad suburban design (be it commercial power centres or monoculture single family detached burbs) through subsidization of artificially low property tax rates, and loose controls on design.

the mature areas, infill, TODs can only contain so many people. It doesn't address the needs and wants of many people, and for many, living centrally increases commute times, pushing them further away from their places of employment isn't a good thing, as the majority of our workforce works on the fringes of the city, not the core. Our employment nodes are spread across the region.

Again, I'm not against suburbs. I'm against bad suburban design, and artificially low property tax rates. To add to the latter, I'm against artificially low rates in any area - be it the core or the burbs. All property tax rates should be indexed to the cost of services provided to said property being taxed.

Regarding the bolded I'm not convinced its as clear as you state financially. As mentioned taking a time stamped dollar analysis of a new suburb and saying; "see, its being subsidized" is misleading. All suburbs, when new, are subsidized to some extent. At some point Millwoods was subsidized as a wholescale development because an expanding population city needed some market to put those consumers that wanted homes. 40yrs later Millwoods is arguably subsidizing newer neighborhoods. Kind of the way it goes in an expanding city.

I sympathize with your concerns on power centers and feel they are poor adaptations to winter cities. But Malls, which the new urbane ethos decries, are a reasonable winter adaptation. Indeed it made sense that Edmonton furthered that retail design mode. Power centers offer no respite from winter and no sidewalks for people to walk on. Presumably they are to be used as park-drive-park-stop-drop shop centers which I find deplorable. But rather than feeling the city was amiss in doing something about this retail design I fear that a municipality, any municipality is somewhat helpless in stopping powerful corporate big box retail push initiatives that have spread across the globe. It may even be somewhat unfair criticism of Edmonton in focusing on a problem that has beset all NA cities.

As far as "bad design" I will address that in the other thread which has been started.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

^ Agree that all areas are normally subsidized at some point in their life cycle. That is what we should be using residential property taxation subclasses for - to recover the cost of those developments.

People had the same negative reaction when Alberta municipalities started billing for water. It used to be a flat rate for as much water as you want, and people flipped out when it was suggested that they should pay for as much as they use. Now, it is a complete non-issue. It is only logical, right? You pay for what you use. Use less, pay less.

On malls: I would like to go against the stream and suggest that a mall can be done right. It needs to be fundamentally connected to the surrounding area, have continual street interaction, and ideally be strategically located as part of a TOD. However, I am not aware of any mall that has done this, and I doubt it would be financially feasible for developers.

Barring that option, I think the best route is still walkable integration of commercial into mixed use areas. Combine this with proper winter city design (which Edmonton does a horrific job of by the way), and you can make them financially feasible as well as attractive for all people.

'I sympathize with your concerns on power centers and feel they are poor adaptations to winter cities. But Malls, which the new urbane ethos decries, are a reasonable winter adaptation. Indeed it made sense that Edmonton furthered that retail design mode. Power centers offer no respite from winter and no sidewalks for people to walk on.'

100% all day long... and ensure those malls have some exterior CRUs and activation. Power centres are a scourge, they simply are.

I don't follow your earlier comment about suburbs and as a result I'm not following this one. How should suburbs be different? What would make them "improved". Lacking that your posts come off as just a different way to critique suburbs and suburban choice.

This is the mode, clearly people like the mode, are in favor of the mode, and move there.

My point is that the people complaining that C2E is too focused on downtown should be discussing their own areas if they want that to change. You can't say that your area is being ignored, then blow up and throw a tantrum any time someone points out the problems in your backyard. If you read the downtown threads, you'll see that almost every one is a response to issues downtown. We seek out and identify the problems downtown, then discuss how to solve them. Of course I'm going to point out the problems in suburbs, because the problems exist and need to be solved. Just like the downtown has problems that need to be solved.

On suburbs I have several ideas on how to improve in design. First is a more intelligent street pattern that promotes active transportation and reduces the strain on our government for services and infrastructure. A hybrid-grid pattern with dispersed mixed-use streets along arterials, properly placed walking paths connecting the area, and municipal and provincial community infrastructure (rec centre, school etc) placed centrally to service multiple areas within active transportation distance.

Also, please note that I don't object to people choosing this "mode". However, there are currently a great deal of unsubstantiated costs associated with it. People should feel free to choose any lifestyle, but they should also pay the full price they are costing society. Currently just in municipal services alone (environmental, time, infrastructure strain not accounted), people living in a condo downtown subsidize people living in a single family detached home. That isn't fair. Therefore, we should either change the design of suburbs, or create a property taxation subclass to account for the costs.

This is disingenuous, several threads I see certain posters posting in the burbs and just passive-aggressively critiquing it for no other reason than they have a vendetta/agenda towards it. That, and to rile up other members.

And not that I ever agree with jaerdo on anything but currents shopping Center is a disaster and it's not even fully developed yet. I laugh every time I hear people say at least it's not as bad as south Edmonton common.

This comes from someone who purchased in Windermere before the Walmart was even open.

Why do some people bang on about the burbs as being sterile or lacking in any personality. Neighborhoods have to grow and mature. Once trees start growing and people landscape their yards and build extensions etc on their homes the area and houses start to take on a personalities of their own. Places like Belgravia, Westmount, Jasper Place all started out as sterile burbs but morphed into their own as time went by.

^Exactly. I should mention as well that Jasper Place, and Beverly, being at one time independent towns have a lane shopping retail district very similar to what is espoused as an ideal. A local place that people can walk and go shopping to. Yet such areas really took a nosedive and the same shopping areas that were originally reasons to buy into the community became frequented by businesses that contributed negatively to the street and area.

On the other hand many other examples exist where the same kind of configuration can be seen in a more sought after neighborhood.

Neighborhood design to that end is really not a deciding factor in how a neighborhood is going to turn out longitudinally or how successful it will be or how much people will enjoy living there.

As I stated before rather than go hells bells for one approach or another a city should continue to provide a range of suburban options so that the consumers that want a simply numbered grid can choose that. Those that want to live on the off cul de sac of meander avenue and getting lost street can choose that too if they want to. But expect there to be problems with the latter.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

^Exactly. I should mention as well that Jasper Place, and Beverly, being at one time independent towns have a lane shopping retail district very similar to what is espoused as an ideal. A local place that people can walk and go shopping to. Yet such areas really took a nosedive and the same shopping areas that were originally reasons to buy into the community became frequented by businesses that contributed negatively to the street and area.

On the other hand many other examples exist where the same kind of configuration can be seen in a more sought after neighborhood.

Neighborhood design to that end is really not a deciding factor in how a neighborhood is going to turn out longitudinally or how successful it will be or how much people will enjoy living there.

As I stated before rather than go hells bells for one approach or another a city should continue to provide a range of suburban options so that the consumers that want a simply numbered grid can choose that. Those that want to live on the off cul de sac of meander avenue and getting lost street can choose that too if they want to. But expect there to be problems with the latter.

I grew up in a 1950s neighbourhood that had a partial grid (lived on grid) with meanders and square crescents. It worked well but those living off the crescent with a large park out front had the most desired homes.

My current neighbourhood has some grid streets with cul de sacs off the grid streets plus some meanders as well as green belts/pipeline corridors/walking trails. I think it's superior to the pure grid in many ways.

The issue of getting lost is likely a thing if the past, though I figure named streets should only be allowed as a secondary address to a numbering system. Eg. 82nd Ave (Whyte Avenue)

As an aside:

I'd love to see the city run walking trails along the sides of the various freeways in order to provide outlying neighbourhoods much more direct, naturalized access to the river valley and other parts of the city.

And not that I ever agree with jaerdo on anything but currents shopping Center is a disaster and it's not even fully developed yet. I laugh every time I hear people say at least it's not as bad as south Edmonton common.

This comes from someone who purchased in Windermere before the Walmart was even open.

As with the others, I'll ask you to elaborate on why Currents is a disaster.

As a Windermere resident, I believe I do have a say that the Currents development is indeed a poor design (simply because I drove by everyday and seen it 1000 times already).

1) Having curved streets with trees = stupid. You see, people keep turning left and right to get into store parking lots (and then out of there), good visibility is a must. Now that they can't change the streets, I would highly recommend that they cut down all vegetation greater than 2 ft. If there has to be trees, plant them evenly in the parking lots.

2) Not having direct access/exit from/to Anthony Henday = stupid. Now that everyone who has done shopping would go back to Windermere Blvd and then turn right on 170St again. Would have been solved by adding an exist between Cabela's and Walmart directly onto AH east bound. An entry at that point could work too. Just make it a right turn in and right turn out. No need for an extra overpass.

I completely agree with the visibility comment, although I'm less concerned with the trees than I am with the tall grasses. As long as they keep the lower branches trimmed near intersections it's manageable though.

As for the extra exit idea, it would have been nice if something like that could have been part of the original plan. Adding something in now wouldn't work though, as it would need to have merge lanes in and out, and there is simply no room to spare along the Henday as it is. In the future plans the Rabbit Hill Rd exit will essentially become that quasi-dedicated exit though.

I don't really like the idea of a dedicated access from the henday, but I think it would have been ideal if it were accessible from Terwilligar drive, and from ellerslie road, obviously on a revised alignment, rather than requiring access from a secondary road that means all people coming from outside the immediate neighbourhood need to make an extra left turn.

I completely agree with the visibility comment, although I'm less concerned with the trees than I am with the tall grasses. As long as they keep the lower branches trimmed near intersections it's manageable though.

As for the extra exit idea, it would have been nice if something like that could have been part of the original plan. Adding something in now wouldn't work though, as it would need to have merge lanes in and out, and there is simply no room to spare along the Henday as it is. In the future plans the Rabbit Hill Rd exit will essentially become that quasi-dedicated exit though.

It's actually not hard. The extra exit won't merge into AH itself. There is actually the off ramp from the 170 St overpass and the on ramp to the Rabbit Hill overpass. Just exit at the off ramp (with is lower speed than AH).

I completely agree with the visibility comment, although I'm less concerned with the trees than I am with the tall grasses. As long as they keep the lower branches trimmed near intersections it's manageable though.

As for the extra exit idea, it would have been nice if something like that could have been part of the original plan. Adding something in now wouldn't work though, as it would need to have merge lanes in and out, and there is simply no room to spare along the Henday as it is. In the future plans the Rabbit Hill Rd exit will essentially become that quasi-dedicated exit though.

It's actually not hard. The extra exit won't merge into AH itself. There is actually the off ramp from the 170 St overpass and the on ramp to the Rabbit Hill overpass. Just exit at the off ramp (with is lower speed than AH).

I have a feeling that there are certain roadway standards that having an exit from an exit would contravene. Not to mention that such an exit would certainly get right in the way of the future expansion plans for the 170th/Henday overpass, for which ground works have already been semi-completed.

Terwilligar drive in Windermere doesn't look like there's a ROW left for a full freeway. The closely spaced side streets don't look suitable either. It's still possible, and I thought that was still the plan too, but it would definitely be more disruptive than making the part North of Windermere drive into a freeway.

Terwilligar drive in Windermere doesn't look like there's a ROW left for a full freeway. The closely spaced side streets don't look suitable either. It's still possible, and I thought that was still the plan too, but it would definitely be more disruptive than making the part North of Windermere drive into a freeway.

There's room. There won't be an overpass at Washburn Drive. Also the median and shoulders at the narrowest point will be removed and the road will be dropped down significantly to mitigate noise. As someone whose lot backs onto the area in question I definitely I'd my homework.

Also, when they realigned Ellerslie they left PLENTY of room for exits/overpass/whatever.

Terwilligar drive in Windermere doesn't look like there's a ROW left for a full freeway. The closely spaced side streets don't look suitable either. It's still possible, and I thought that was still the plan too, but it would definitely be more disruptive than making the part North of Windermere drive into a freeway.

Give me a f'ing break. The exact same line is applicable to you, SDM, IanO & just about everyone with an pre-2008 start date. Including me. I think the only person who has maintained or improved his posting style is Bulliver who's honed his shots to a keen edge. The rest of us, not so much.

The sheer hubris & lack of empathy most of the posters have on this board truly embodies my current personal motto for Edmonton.

"F you, I got mine."

Thanks, very kind. Personally, I'd attribute any improvement in my posts to my attempt to no longer engage in flame wars. I can be as hot-headed as anyone else, and there are certainly many posters here I regularly wish to bash with a clue-stick. It's rarely worth it, so I try to keep my posts as simple reportage of things I've personally seen or experienced.

To speak to the larger issue of this thread, a few have touched upon it, but the fact this forum caters to those more civic-minded than most will naturally skew participation to those with a urban/downtown bent.

That said, we could all be more nuanced, tolerant, and open to the opinions and experiences of everyone, urban or suburban, conservative or 'lefty'.

Terwilligar drive in Windermere doesn't look like there's a ROW left for a full freeway. The closely spaced side streets don't look suitable either. It's still possible, and I thought that was still the plan too, but it would definitely be more disruptive than making the part North of Windermere drive into a freeway.

Do you even understand what is "Windermere Drive"?

Windermere Boulevard. I was incorrect, but kinda obvious in the context, no?

Terwilligar drive in Windermere doesn't look like there's a ROW left for a full freeway. The closely spaced side streets don't look suitable either. It's still possible, and I thought that was still the plan too, but it would definitely be more disruptive than making the part North of Windermere drive into a freeway.

There's room. There won't be an overpass at Washburn Drive. Also the median and shoulders at the narrowest point will be removed and the road will be dropped down significantly to mitigate noise. As someone whose lot backs onto the area in question I definitely I'd my homework.

Also, when they realigned Ellerslie they left PLENTY of room for exits/overpass/whatever.

Thanks. Do you know if Washburn etc. will be closed completely, flyovers or ri/to to a ramp only?

Give me a f'ing break. The exact same line is applicable to you, SDM, IanO & just about everyone with an pre-2008 start date. Including me. I think the only person who has maintained or improved his posting style is Bulliver who's honed his shots to a keen edge. The rest of us, not so much.

The sheer hubris & lack of empathy most of the posters have on this board truly embodies my current personal motto for Edmonton.

"F you, I got mine."

i've been here since 2006 and would like to think my posting style has for the most part been maintained...

although when it comes to "F you, I got mine", i must admit that when it comes to my garbage cans and other peoples ****, i do tend to be quite possessive.

Terwilligar drive in Windermere doesn't look like there's a ROW left for a full freeway. The closely spaced side streets don't look suitable either. It's still possible, and I thought that was still the plan too, but it would definitely be more disruptive than making the part North of Windermere drive into a freeway.

There's room. There won't be an overpass at Washburn Drive. Also the median and shoulders at the narrowest point will be removed and the road will be dropped down significantly to mitigate noise. As someone whose lot backs onto the area in question I definitely I'd my homework.

Also, when they realigned Ellerslie they left PLENTY of room for exits/overpass/whatever.

Thanks. Do you know if Washburn etc. will be closed completely, flyovers or ri/to to a ramp only?

Give me a f'ing break. The exact same line is applicable to you, SDM, IanO & just about everyone with an pre-2008 start date. Including me. I think the only person who has maintained or improved his posting style is Bulliver who's honed his shots to a keen edge. The rest of us, not so much.

The sheer hubris & lack of empathy most of the posters have on this board truly embodies my current personal motto for Edmonton.

"F you, I got mine."

i've been here since 2006 and would like to think my posting style has for the most part been maintained...

although when it comes to "F you, I got mine", i must admit that when it comes to my garbage cans and other peoples ****, i do tend to be quite possessive.

Its not hard to maintain cranky and miserable.

jk around.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

There's room. There won't be an overpass at Washburn Drive. Also the median and shoulders at the narrowest point will be removed and the road will be dropped down significantly to mitigate noise. As someone whose lot backs onto the area in question I definitely I'd my homework.

Also, when they realigned Ellerslie they left PLENTY of room for exits/overpass/whatever.

Thanks. Do you know if Washburn etc. will be closed completely, flyovers or ri/to to a ramp only?

10-20 years... Obviously the city has other roadway priorities that will come first, whitemud/yellowhead related. The province will be paying for the majority of it though, as its a regional highway more than a city artery

There's room. There won't be an overpass at Washburn Drive. Also the median and shoulders at the narrowest point will be removed and the road will be dropped down significantly to mitigate noise. As someone whose lot backs onto the area in question I definitely I'd my homework.

Also, when they realigned Ellerslie they left PLENTY of room for exits/overpass/whatever.

Thanks. Do you know if Washburn etc. will be closed completely, flyovers or ri/to to a ramp only?

As a Windermere resident, I believe I do have a say that the Currents development is indeed a poor design (simply because I drove by everyday and seen it 1000 times already).

1) Having curved streets with trees = stupid. You see, people keep turning left and right to get into store parking lots (and then out of there), good visibility is a must. Now that they can't change the streets, I would highly recommend that they cut down all vegetation greater than 2 ft. If there has to be trees, plant them evenly in the parking lots.

2) Not having direct access/exit from/to Anthony Henday = stupid. Now that everyone who has done shopping would go back to Windermere Blvd and then turn right on 170St again. Would have been solved by adding an exist between Cabela's and Walmart directly onto AH east bound. An entry at that point could work too. Just make it a right turn in and right turn out. No need for an extra overpass.

You forget the daily readership. It would surprise Yo u at who reads this daily, and that's after netting out the spiders.

. . . which is why I have my previously stated opinion of why we have so many people lurking. . . while some of you wax poetically about the why... I get the feedback firsthand.

So why can't the site attract a lot more people posting their opinions, ideas, concerns, etc? Thousands of Edmontonians, using their real names, likely post all kinds of questions stuff to Facebook every minute yet c2e gets almost zero uptake even with anonymity and some really sensible threads (once in a while that is. )

Moreover, is any site linking to c2e? That might at least gain the site more attention via Google searches but c2e seems to forever fly under the radar. Years ago I put c2e on Wikipedia but someone deleted it since it didn't meet some criteria for being a legitimate web site or something or other.

Because this forums user base mostly shuns anyone who doesn't live downtown or centrally. There is a group-think mentality here that mostly stems from the DECL-friends club, and they will all hate-post if you disagree with their opinions on how a city should function. Hence this thread.
This forum will never be more than it is while the moderators and admins (who some a part of the said club) allow this to continue.
90% of Edmontonians lives in areas that go against the group-think super-elite friends club, and therefore the majority of Edmontonians are scared off. You'll see a few people try a few posts, get put off, and then just give up.

I think most Edmontonians just could give enough of a **** to join a forum like us winners and post about Edmonton everyday. I dont think the reason this forum isnt more active is because it has a pro-Downtown bias

The simplest answer is correct, and the simplest answer is that people don't like having in-depth discussions about policy, urban design, politics, transportation, etc. People post on facebook not as a way to seek out discussion, but as a way to shout from their soapbox. To be heard, rather than to engage. You see this sometimes on C2E - people that come and voice their opinion, only to pack up and go home if someone engages them. Not rudely, mind you. Not in an aggressive way. The faintest whiff of their ideas being challenged intellectually, and people run back to facebook where they can absorb "likes" from the same dozen people without ever being questioned on their statements.

Communities like this one are bubbles. They do not reflect society outside the bubble well, because society outside the bubble does not care for the bubble's goings on.

Except in this case Jaerdo is almost certainly correct. You all really think there's a stampede of suburbanites who really, really want to post here but don't because of Ian et al's posts? Give me a break.

Jaerdo, your habit of arguing from a viewpoint of absolute black and white certainty may be the reason I finally leave. You don't engage, you bulldoze.

Actually, EveB, I think Jaredo has a very valid point.

And your click-supporter Medwards has become one of this site's most toxic black-and-white bully/bulldozers and easily does as much to dissuade new posters as anyone else from posting here. Not that I would expect you to see this, as he's posting on your side, and the essentially vanquished (partially by Medwards) edmonton daily photo's excessive pro-downtown and pro-urbanism posts used to grate you so. In other words: you have bias, too.

Last edited by Dialog; 30-11-2015 at 04:07 PM.

I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

my username there is peeflar, which happens to be the same as my original user name, where I don't hid behind an anonymous username here like you do so you can fire shots at moahunter by calling him granaryman and vice versa?

my username there is peeflar, which happens to be the same as my original user name, where I don't hid behind an anonymous username here like you do so you can fire shots at moahunter by calling him granaryman and vice versa?

Or, you could stop moving the goalpost.

I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

And how many have left due to Medward's and noodle's near constant ******* INTERMINABLE nit picking of anything Ian posts creating a massive thread derail? Or just the general pervasive sense of toxicity here?

Well, maybe we need to rethink the forums. I'd still like to hash out the idea of a sub-forum created for every neighbourhood in the city to localize the discussions to what families might find most interesting and worthy of discussion in an anon. fashion.

As far as I know, no one offers dedicated neighbourhood perspective discussions (most would be empty but when issues arise c2e would be there. Wouldn't it have been neat to have a Terwilligar Forum last year Instead, we start threads with news articles - so thespian has already been put in place by the media and not the residents.)*

Then of course we'd have a massive DOWNTOWN forum

* A new friend was saying (if I got it right) how his wife did a neighbourhood event a few years back just to get people together and contribute to the community and a reporter came by, talked with her for an hour, asked all kinds of questions, then raised the issue of crime. Then went away and wrote the article from a perspective that the was doing the event to fight crime in the neighbourhood - which hadn't even entered her mind until the reporter asked about it.

But it's not simply that the focus is on Downtown. It's that it's difficult to talk about Downtown if one disagrees with the core posters. This comes especially to light if security issues are discussed. Or having stores, restaurants or services that aren't geared to a specific demographic (which isn't mine).

I apologize if me calling people on their BS is contributing to the toxicity of the forums.

I figured pointing out someone being a hypocrite, or a shill, or otherwise illuminating the laundry list of biases that run rampant through certain people's posts would help inform people & remind them that things aren't always what they seem & to think critically about how, what & why other people post.

But hey, if you just wanna keep suckling at the teats of unfettered Pollyanna boosterism mixed with hypocrisy & shilling I'll try and keep a lid on it. Mea culpa.

Part of me wishes I could go back to the halcyon days when I'd post construction pics & people engaged in actual discussions on this site, but those days are 5 years on now.

I kinda miss the old days on the forums, but I prefer the new days everywhere else in my life.

(I'm also a commenter in that little thread on reddit, though I go by the newer moniker of "runsamok" there, same as any of my other post 2009ish social media account. I've no desire to publicize my name, given the relative uniqueness, but I'm not really hiding away.)

Last edited by noodle; 30-11-2015 at 05:16 PM.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

And how many have left due to Medward's and noodle's near constant ******* INTERMINABLE nit picking of anything Ian posts creating a massive thread derail? Or just the general pervasive sense of toxicity here?

and how many more have left because any time anything suburb is suggested, Iano and the gang from DECL does the same and much more? And anytime someone disagrees with the gang, they all rally together to defend each other as the only right opinion when its just an opinion. No opinion is ever wrong, unless its posted on C2E and doesn't agree with the group-think mentality that is always here.

IanO gets the brunt of it because he composes 25% of the posts here. That's right. We have a few thousand posters, but IanO still manages to make up 25% of the posts. Talk about overwhelming opinion, how could he not expect feedback? Should we all just bow to IanO as the all seeing all knowing expert on everything Edmonton?

^ ^^ To both of you, we are all aware of Ian's and others 'exuberance'. There is a difference between correcting misinformation, putting forth a different opinion, and what you guys do, which is little more than cheesy and petty attacks designed to create conflict. It's to the detriment of the entire forum when it occurs IN EVERY SINGLE THREAD.

See, I mean, you are being petty right here by mocking my capitalization. Damn well feels like every thread.

I'm off to work in less than an hour, and I'll not spend it compiling your quotes. There's a few choice ones in the first three pages of your posting history. If you really don't understand what I'm talking about, and need me to lay it out for you remind me in a week when I'm back home and I'll do so.

Noodle and medwards are mad because Ian actually made a name for himself boosting the **** out of downtown while they tried to be boosters but didn't hit the spotlight.
Now they are sad/mad and expressing via the interwebz.
Jealousy at its finest!

Just say it, just say you are jealous of Ian. He took being a guy on a forum (not this one) dedicated himself to his passion, got vocal and you couldn't do it. You got left as a guy on a forum and gave up and moved to whatever generic hood you are in now and just have to defend that failure!

How about we all collectively stop all of the **** and all collectively work towards a higher bar around here. Not to stop debate, but let's cut the crap. I am getting sick and tired of coming on here now and am embarrassed by much of what's being posted.

How about we all collectively stop all of the **** and all collectively work towards a higher bar around here. Not to stop debate, but let's cut the crap. I am getting sick and tired of coming on here now and am embarrassed by much of what's being posted.

I will make the 'first' effort.

ok, IanO, I will follow your lead. I hope this ends the drive bys you also do. I'm just going to leave DanC latest post as it is, and not respond to it, outside of this, DanC

I am a suburbanite, and I believe Downtown is still our greatest priority.

I do not agree that all us little suburbanites are some kind of big team with little dicks and are in some kind of competition with Downtown. Both types and the in-between are all needed and loved for what they are, but yeah, our Downtown hasn't traditionally done what we need it to going forward, so it's still a priority. Viva la choice.

Just say it, just say you are jealous of Ian. He took being a guy on a forum (not this one) dedicated himself to his passion, got vocal and you couldn't do it. You got left as a guy on a forum and gave up and moved to whatever generic hood you are in now and just have to defend that failure!

Yea, we can be dicks too. Just like you.

All 'hoods' are good hoods if they fit the criteria of the person buying into them. A blended family of eight does not have the same wants and needs as a single person. We all buy or rent homes in the areas we think best fit our needs. To dis one area above others is futile. A single person could be happy living in a downtown high rise. Catch up with that person 10 years later, they could be married with 3 kids. They are probably going to tell you they loved living downtown when they did but things have changed and now they are perfectly content in the suburban setting. One size does not fit all.

Yea I don't actually care where anyone lives. Ive never lived downtown I just know it offers way more to the overall City as a focal point than my neighbourhood ever will or could and I live in a pretty great neighbourhood imo.

Families of eight barely fit in suburbia anymore, at least with current Jones's to keep up with, max one kid per bedroom, max one teen per car once they can drive. Even when they're small there aren't too many vehicles that fit 8, and how many 7 bedroom homes are there out there?

Pretty much none.

Also, the carts at superstore are too small, and we're only a family of 6.

^^Like I say, one size does not fit all. There are people who develop their basements to accommodate extra family. There are families that have two parents and three kids, add to that maybe two grandparents and a family member from another city going to U of A or other place of learning. They build or renovate their homes for their needs. Sometimes it's not to keep up with the Jones's but a solution to their needs.
If your a family of 6 and living in a Superstore cart I think you have bigger problems on your hands.